Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Yay! 13 episodes per season, with flexible runtime (premium/streaming standard). A season-spanning story. "Colorblind" and "genderblind" casting and a strong hint at LGBT characters. High concept sci-fi will be included like plays on the human condition.

Yay! That's *some* information for the start!

Now I can't wait to learn in which universe it will be set, and if it will be an anthology. When is Comic-Con?

Yay! 13 episodes per season, with flexible runtime (premium/streaming standard). A season-spanning story. "Colorblind" and "genderblind" casting and a strong hint at LGBT characters. High consept sci-fi will be included like plays on the human condition.

Yay! That's *some* information for the start!

Now I can't wait to learn in which universe it will be set, and if it will be an anthology. When is Comic-Con?

July 20th-24th.

And yes, I like this news! These positive signs for the series could be the best (albeit late) 50th anniversary gift Star Trek could receive; especially in the wake of the bad news regarding STC and the other fan films.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Yay! 13 episodes per season, with flexible runtime (premium/streaming standard). A season-spanning story. "Colorblind" and "genderblind" casting and a strong hint at LGBT characters. High consept sci-fi will be included like plays on the human condition.

Yay! That's *some* information for the start!

Now I can't wait to learn in which universe it will be set, and if it will be an anthology. When is Comic-Con?

July 20th-24th.

And yes, I like this news! These positive signs for the series could be the best (albeit late) 50th anniversary gift Star Trek could receive; especially in the wake of the bad news regarding STC and the other fan films.

I'm so excited... if I were a hen, I'd give standing ovulations. (Okay. that was bad.)

No seriously, I'm totally enthused by this news! =)

Fuller's answers made me think he is *perfect* for the job ... even the few things he said did not just confirm, but exceed my hopes!

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Yay! 13 episodes per season, with flexible runtime (premium/streaming standard). A season-spanning story. "Colorblind" and "genderblind" casting and a strong hint at LGBT characters. High consept sci-fi will be included like plays on the human condition.

Yay! That's *some* information for the start!

Now I can't wait to learn in which universe it will be set, and if it will be an anthology. When is Comic-Con?

July 20th-24th.

And yes, I like this news! These positive signs for the series could be the best (albeit late) 50th anniversary gift Star Trek could receive; especially in the wake of the bad news regarding STC and the other fan films.

I'm so excited... if I were a hen, I'd give standing ovulations. (Okay. that was bad.)

No seriously, I'm totally enthused by this news! =)

Fuller's answers made me think he is *perfect* for the job ... even the few things he said did not just confirm, but exceed my hopes!

Hehe... standing ovulations.

And yes, Fuller sounds like his vision of ST is exactly what is needed to fill in the gaping hole of dissatisfaction that many ST fans feel about more action-oriented "Kelvin timeline" Star Trek. I like aspects of NuTrek, but I'd be lying if I said that I didn't miss the more thoughtful, contemplative Star Trek as well..

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Yay! 13 episodes per season, with flexible runtime (premium/streaming standard). A season-spanning story. "Colorblind" and "genderblind" casting and a strong hint at LGBT characters. High consept sci-fi will be included like plays on the human condition.

Yay! That's *some* information for the start!

Now I can't wait to learn in which universe it will be set, and if it will be an anthology. When is Comic-Con?

July 20th-24th.

And yes, I like this news! These positive signs for the series could be the best (albeit late) 50th anniversary gift Star Trek could receive; especially in the wake of the bad news regarding STC and the other fan films.

I'm so excited... if I were a hen, I'd give standing ovulations. (Okay. that was bad.)

No seriously, I'm totally enthused by this news! =)

Fuller's answers made me think he is *perfect* for the job ... even the few things he said did not just confirm, but exceed my hopes!

Hehe... standing ovulations.

And yes, Fuller sounds like his vision of ST is exactly what is needed to fill in the gaping hole of dissatisfaction that many ST fans feel about more action-oriented "Kelvin timeline" Star Trek. I like aspects of NuTrek, but I'd be lying if I said that I didn't miss the more thoughtful, contemplative Star Trek as well..

The mere hint at "high concept science-fiction" gave me a rush of endorphines...

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Yay! 13 episodes per season, with flexible runtime (premium/streaming standard). A season-spanning story. "Colorblind" and "genderblind" casting and a strong hint at LGBT characters. High concept sci-fi will be included like plays on the human condition.

Yay! That's *some* information for the start!

Now I can't wait to learn in which universe it will be set, and if it will be an anthology. When is Comic-Con?

San Diego's next month, July, but he might've meant New York Comicon, which is in October...? (I skimmed that bit.) Also, there's a big New York Star Trek con (apparently) around the same time, so I'd imagine all the big announcements are going to be made there. But yeah, it IS exciting to read Fuller's comments!

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Here we go again... that's my first impression. I admit Im still burned from the last 20 years of reading glowing comments about Star Trek's "DNA" from executive producers, Berman to Abrams. I consider myself adept at being a stenographer of studio bullshit masquerading as true understanding of the source material.

First the positive. I was actually heartened by Fuller's reference to Trek DNA based on certain episodes. I know if I were leading a new series, I would want to model it on what works within the franchise, as opposed to what doesn't. I would have a list of episodes from all of the series that embody that DNA, and also a list of other episodes (from all or most series) that embody the worst of Trek, pitfalls to be avoided. I wish Fuller had mentioned what those episodes were.

I also like the idea that Trek will be presented in a way that jives with how TV is presented these days. It's a necessary narrative shift--but one that will need to be taken with some care. Because it is streaming is not license to write a sci-fi version of Game of Thrones. Fuller said he is not comfortable with cursing on Star Trek. Let him also say he is not comfortable with graphic nudity and violence on Star Trek.

On the negative impressions. I don't like that he said star ships are being modeled on sports cars. In my (albeit TOS-film era) opinion, Star Fleet is the Chris Craft of science-fiction--and Im borrowing that phrase from a designer who worked on the TOS film Enterprise designs. Star Fleet is not supposed to be sexy. It's supposed to be majestic, regal, even WASPy.

Speaking of WASPy, here is another small quibble. Fuller used the term "color blind and gender blind" to describe the progressive potential he might bring to the show. I have no doubt Trek will finally get LGBT expression, now that almost allll TV shows do. But--and I know this may come off as politically correct--the term "color blind" is so 1990s. These days, white men--and I say this as a white man--should say: "As a white man, I understand that I have benefited from so much privilege that others, who have made it half as far as I, have had to fight tooth and nail to achieve." The prospect of a white man in a position to write for minority characters and hire minority actors for Star Trek, and who says he is "color blind" is unsettling. Fuller could just as easily turn out to be the executive producer, so common in Hollywood, who says "Im not obligated to put people of color or LGBT on our show because we're color and gender blind and there is no difference one way or the other." I know he did not mean it this way. He was probably saying the opposite. But the fact that he used the term "color blind" strikes me as culturally incompetent. It's a red flag. Only his actions going forward will make me feel more comfortable.

Ok...maybe not as anthology as some may have thought. Intriguing (he says it's "not accurate" which makes me wonder if it is like a semi-anthology or something...like maybe it's just a different story each year, but same sets and crews and ships). Also...the "between TUC and TNG" rumor seems to be squashed.

I can't wait.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

On the negative impressions. I don't like that he said star ships are being modeled on sports cars. In my (albeit TOS-film era) opinion, Star Fleet is the Chris Craft of science-fiction--and Im borrowing that phrase from a designer who worked on the TOS film Enterprise designs. Star Fleet is not supposed to be sexy. It's supposed to be majestic, regal, even WASPy.

Since when?

The Ent-E was very sleek looking (the swept back look was far sportier and much 'sexier' than the bloated Ent-D). Voyager also had a far sportier look than the original 1701 from the 1960s. The Defiant was a tough little 'sports car' of a ship. Compact and tough.

I reject the notion that a starship has to fit in such narrow parameters. It doesn't have to be 'regal' or WASPy; that's sounds kind of like "my Star Trek or no Star Trek." ST is many things to many people.

Speaking of WASPy, here is another small quibble. Fuller used the term "color blind and gender blind" to describe the progressive potential he might bring to the show. I have no doubt Trek will finally get LGBT expression, now that almost allll TV shows do. But--and I know this may come off as politically correct--the term "color blind" is so 1990s. These days, white men--and I say this as a white man--should say: "As a white man, I understand that I have benefited from so much privilege that others, who have made it half as far as I, have had to fight tooth and nail to achieve." The prospect of a white man in a position to write for minority characters and hire minority actors for Star Trek, and who says he is "color blind" is unsettling. Fuller could just as easily turn out to be the executive producer, so common in Hollywood, who says "Im not obligated to put people of color or LGBT on our show because we're color and gender blind and there is no difference one way or the other." I know he did not mean it this way. He was probably saying the opposite. But the fact that he used the term "color blind" strikes me as culturally incompetent. It's a red flag. Only his actions going forward will make me feel more comfortable.

^I disagree; there's nothing dated about the term 'colorblind' since we don't yet live in a post-racist society. The term may sound 'very '90s' to some, but it is still relevant. Your interpretation of his use of that phrase isn't necessarily the only one, nor is it necessarily what Fuller meant. It may be exactly what it sounds like, and not what one's own suspicions make it out to be.

And why don't we judge the work based on the output itself, and not on subjective interpretations of soundbites?

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I have a feeling that perhaps when Meyer stated that shortly after Star Trek 6 is the jumping off point, that it is possibly just one scene that shows as a flashback as an important event that directly coincides to whatever our crew's mission is. But in fact the new show takes place int he prime universe just after the destruction of Romulus (assuming they acknowledge that as prime canon).

Just a hunch. Hopefully if Trek 6 is the jumping off point, it does not involve too much time travel or changing the timeline crap that we've seen way too much of.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I have a feeling that perhaps when Meyer stated that shortly after Star Trek 6 is the jumping off point, that it is possibly just one scene that shows as a flashback as an important event that directly coincides to whatever our crew's mission is. But in fact the new show takes place int he prime universe just after the destruction of Romulus (assuming they acknowledge that as prime canon).

Just a hunch. Hopefully if Trek 6 is the jumping off point, it does not involve too much time travel or changing the timeline crap that we've seen way too much of.

I agree.

I could just be a thematic jumping off point; just as TNG's "Unification" ties in with TUC when Spock mentions the similarity between his 24th century peace mission to Romulus and his overtures to the Klingons in the previous century.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

On the negative impressions. I don't like that he said star ships are being modeled on sports cars. In my (albeit TOS-film era) opinion, Star Fleet is the Chris Craft of science-fiction--and Im borrowing that phrase from a designer who worked on the TOS film Enterprise designs. Star Fleet is not supposed to be sexy. It's supposed to be majestic, regal, even WASPy.

Since when?

The Ent-E was very sleek looking (the swept back look was far sportier and much 'sexier' than the bloated Ent-D). Voyager also had a far sportier look than the original 1701 from the 1960s. The Defiant was a tough little 'sports car' of a ship. Compact and tough.

I reject the notion that a starship has to fit in such narrow parameters. It doesn't have to be 'regal' or WASPy; that's sounds kind of like "my Star Trek or no Star Trek." ST is many things to many people.

Speaking of WASPy, here is another small quibble. Fuller used the term "color blind and gender blind" to describe the progressive potential he might bring to the show. I have no doubt Trek will finally get LGBT expression, now that almost allll TV shows do. But--and I know this may come off as politically correct--the term "color blind" is so 1990s. These days, white men--and I say this as a white man--should say: "As a white man, I understand that I have benefited from so much privilege that others, who have made it half as far as I, have had to fight tooth and nail to achieve." The prospect of a white man in a position to write for minority characters and hire minority actors for Star Trek, and who says he is "color blind" is unsettling. Fuller could just as easily turn out to be the executive producer, so common in Hollywood, who says "Im not obligated to put people of color or LGBT on our show because we're color and gender blind and there is no difference one way or the other." I know he did not mean it this way. He was probably saying the opposite. But the fact that he used the term "color blind" strikes me as culturally incompetent. It's a red flag. Only his actions going forward will make me feel more comfortable.

^I disagree; there's nothing dated about the term 'colorblind' since we don't yet live in a post-racist society. The term may sound 'very '90s' to some, but it is still relevant. Your interpretation of his use of that phrase isn't necessarily the only one, nor is it necessarily what Fuller meant. It may be exactly what it sounds like, and not what one's own suspicions make it out to be.

And why don't we judge the work based on the output itself, and not on subjective interpretations of soundbites?

Since sound bites and targeted advertisement are all we will get until January, I say it is fair game to pick them apart, especially since they can be objectively compared to studio talking points from Trek show-runners going back to 1987. As someone who was paying close attention to those talking points during the Berman/Piller to Berman/Braga to JJ Abrams years, and comparing those talking points to what was eventually put on screen, I have an especially critical... hell, I'll admit it, cynical ear.

I also admit that Fuller did not say anything too concerning. I'm just nitpicking.

The Chris Craft comparison is just interesting to me. I don't remember the name of the guy, but he is interviewed on the ST09 documentaries. Pretty sure he worked on TMP. He described how some people in '79 were arguing that the new Trek ships in the films should reflect what was seen on Star Wars, about how the boxy, uneven, jagged shapes of the imperial star destroyer created a sense of massive scale, and the clean lines of Star Fleet ships made it impossible to get a sense of how big they were. His argument was that the Enterprise needed those clean lines. (Google Chris Craft and you'll get what he means.) I think the Ent-E keeps that spirit. VOY, and as you point out the Ent-D, somewhat less so. I think the Abrams Enterprise is somewhat more of a departure, but not much of one. This is a stylistic choice. The retro-fitted 1701 is the most beautiful starship in my opinion. And the Epsilon is a true modernized version of it (if only the stories set on that ship did not suck so much, I would love it more).

That is an aesthetic debate, and Im open to whatever sports car aesthetic Fuller wants to bring to Star Fleet.

More serious is the race and diversity question. I know that he meant well by "color blind" but the fact that he used that term is worrisome. Being color blind is synonymous with post-racial, and I would have hoped that America has learned in these last 8 years that we are not post-racial. I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt. But here is my fear. If he casts a lily-white crew, like so many of his peers in Hollywood, the justification he will give is that he is color blind. Maybe he doesn't think like that, but right now I don't know this guy. His actions will tell.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

On the negative impressions. I don't like that he said star ships are being modeled on sports cars. In my (albeit TOS-film era) opinion, Star Fleet is the Chris Craft of science-fiction--and Im borrowing that phrase from a designer who worked on the TOS film Enterprise designs. Star Fleet is not supposed to be sexy. It's supposed to be majestic, regal, even WASPy.

Since when?

The Ent-E was very sleek looking (the swept back look was far sportier and much 'sexier' than the bloated Ent-D). Voyager also had a far sportier look than the original 1701 from the 1960s. The Defiant was a tough little 'sports car' of a ship. Compact and tough.

I reject the notion that a starship has to fit in such narrow parameters. It doesn't have to be 'regal' or WASPy; that's sounds kind of like "my Star Trek or no Star Trek." ST is many things to many people.

Speaking of WASPy, here is another small quibble. Fuller used the term "color blind and gender blind" to describe the progressive potential he might bring to the show. I have no doubt Trek will finally get LGBT expression, now that almost allll TV shows do. But--and I know this may come off as politically correct--the term "color blind" is so 1990s. These days, white men--and I say this as a white man--should say: "As a white man, I understand that I have benefited from so much privilege that others, who have made it half as far as I, have had to fight tooth and nail to achieve." The prospect of a white man in a position to write for minority characters and hire minority actors for Star Trek, and who says he is "color blind" is unsettling. Fuller could just as easily turn out to be the executive producer, so common in Hollywood, who says "Im not obligated to put people of color or LGBT on our show because we're color and gender blind and there is no difference one way or the other." I know he did not mean it this way. He was probably saying the opposite. But the fact that he used the term "color blind" strikes me as culturally incompetent. It's a red flag. Only his actions going forward will make me feel more comfortable.

^I disagree; there's nothing dated about the term 'colorblind' since we don't yet live in a post-racist society. The term may sound 'very '90s' to some, but it is still relevant. Your interpretation of his use of that phrase isn't necessarily the only one, nor is it necessarily what Fuller meant. It may be exactly what it sounds like, and not what one's own suspicions make it out to be.

And why don't we judge the work based on the output itself, and not on subjective interpretations of soundbites?

Since sound bites and targeted advertisement are all we will get until January, I say it is fair game to pick them apart, especially since they can be objectively compared to studio talking points from Trek show-runners going back to 1987. As someone who was paying close attention to those talking points during the Berman/Piller to Berman/Braga to JJ Abrams years, and comparing those talking points to what was eventually put on screen, I have an especially critical... hell, I'll admit it, cynical ear.

I also admit that Fuller did not say anything too concerning. I'm just nitpicking.

The Chris Craft comparison is just interesting to me. I don't remember the name of the guy, but he is interviewed on the ST09 documentaries. Pretty sure he worked on TMP. He described how some people in '79 were arguing that the new Trek ships in the films should reflect what was seen on Star Wars, about how the boxy, uneven, jagged shapes of the imperial star destroyer created a sense of massive scale, and the clean lines of Star Fleet ships made it impossible to get a sense of how big they were. His argument was that the Enterprise needed those clean lines. (Google Chris Craft and you'll get what he means.) I think the Ent-E keeps that spirit. VOY, and as you point out the Ent-D, somewhat less so. I think the Abrams Enterprise is somewhat more of a departure, but not much of one. This is a stylistic choice. The retro-fitted 1701 is the most beautiful starship in my opinion. And the Epsilon is a true modernized version of it (if only the stories set on that ship did not suck so much, I would love it more).

That is an aesthetic debate, and Im open to whatever sports car aesthetic Fuller wants to bring to Star Fleet.

More serious is the race and diversity question. I know that he meant well by "color blind" but the fact that he used that term is worrisome. Being color blind is synonymous with post-racial, and I would have hoped that America has learned in these last 8 years that we are not post-racial. I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt. But here is my fear. If he casts a lily-white crew, like so many of his peers in Hollywood, the justification he will give is that he is color blind. Maybe he doesn't think like that, but right now I don't know this guy. His actions will tell.

I would say with near-100% certainty that Fuller will not cast an all-white crew. That kind of s#!t wouldn't even fly in the 1966 show...

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I have a feeling that perhaps when Meyer stated that shortly after Star Trek 6 is the jumping off point, that it is possibly just one scene that shows as a flashback as an important event that directly coincides to whatever our crew's mission is. But in fact the new show takes place int he prime universe just after the destruction of Romulus (assuming they acknowledge that as prime canon).

Just a hunch. Hopefully if Trek 6 is the jumping off point, it does not involve too much time travel or changing the timeline crap that we've seen way too much of.

I keep coming back to what Meyers said as a sign that CBS Trek will have as its premise some situation that directly addresses our current geo-political state. In 1991, it was the end of the Cold War. Today there is a lot to choose from... too much to choose from. We are living in an futuristic version of the 1960s (how's that for a mind bender). In '91 the Klingons were the Russians. In '17, to me, the Klingons could easily stand in for Saudi Arabia, a nation deeply religious and honor bound that is divided between extremism and co-esitance with the world.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

On the negative impressions. I don't like that he said star ships are being modeled on sports cars. In my (albeit TOS-film era) opinion, Star Fleet is the Chris Craft of science-fiction--and Im borrowing that phrase from a designer who worked on the TOS film Enterprise designs. Star Fleet is not supposed to be sexy. It's supposed to be majestic, regal, even WASPy.

Since when?

The Ent-E was very sleek looking (the swept back look was far sportier and much 'sexier' than the bloated Ent-D). Voyager also had a far sportier look than the original 1701 from the 1960s. The Defiant was a tough little 'sports car' of a ship. Compact and tough.

I reject the notion that a starship has to fit in such narrow parameters. It doesn't have to be 'regal' or WASPy; that's sounds kind of like "my Star Trek or no Star Trek." ST is many things to many people.

Speaking of WASPy, here is another small quibble. Fuller used the term "color blind and gender blind" to describe the progressive potential he might bring to the show. I have no doubt Trek will finally get LGBT expression, now that almost allll TV shows do. But--and I know this may come off as politically correct--the term "color blind" is so 1990s. These days, white men--and I say this as a white man--should say: "As a white man, I understand that I have benefited from so much privilege that others, who have made it half as far as I, have had to fight tooth and nail to achieve." The prospect of a white man in a position to write for minority characters and hire minority actors for Star Trek, and who says he is "color blind" is unsettling. Fuller could just as easily turn out to be the executive producer, so common in Hollywood, who says "Im not obligated to put people of color or LGBT on our show because we're color and gender blind and there is no difference one way or the other." I know he did not mean it this way. He was probably saying the opposite. But the fact that he used the term "color blind" strikes me as culturally incompetent. It's a red flag. Only his actions going forward will make me feel more comfortable.

^I disagree; there's nothing dated about the term 'colorblind' since we don't yet live in a post-racist society. The term may sound 'very '90s' to some, but it is still relevant. Your interpretation of his use of that phrase isn't necessarily the only one, nor is it necessarily what Fuller meant. It may be exactly what it sounds like, and not what one's own suspicions make it out to be.

And why don't we judge the work based on the output itself, and not on subjective interpretations of soundbites?

I find it a little naive when people say we live in a post-racial, colorblind society. I would not say that the terms are dated, but rather that we are not ready for them yet. In the Star Trek universe, however, humanity truly is ready for them. Star Trek's universe is colorblind and post-racial in the sense that anyone can accomplish anything regardless of race, gender, creed, or sexual orientation. Star Trek celebrates all colors and walks of life. I think this is what Fuller is getting at.